Texas Scramble

[Swango1980]

I really do think there is a huge amount of arrogance from WHS supporters in regards to Texas Scramble handicaps. Of course, they can simply keep saying the line "WHS uses thousands of scores to provide a fair handicap", yet I'm pretty sure they have absolutely no idea exactly how ANY scores were used and processed to determine these values? It could have been one guy in a room, who as an after thought did some processing and came up with a formula. A few people checked it out, and say it looks reasonable enough, go with it. Then, in a few years after clubs actually use it, they may realise there was at least one, if not more huge oversights when coming up with the initial formula. We just don't know.

However, I must have played in maybe a dozen Scrambles, or more, since WHS began. Yes, not hundreds of thousands, just a dozen or so. However, every one has been won with high handicapped teams (see exception below). And, most of them all 4 were high handicappers. Winning scores have often been better than 20 under par. They are scores that would be impossible for a scratch team to shoot, and basically impossible for most combinations of lowish handicappers. That is, pretty much every single scramble competition I've played, both on my home course and at other courses. And, most of the time (when I've known the winners), it isn't a question that they are bandits and keeping high handicaps purposely. It just seems they get way too many shots in a format where you can have up to 3 terrible shots out of 4 and get away with it.

Exception: At my old club, we were able to get a much more competitive format by drawing teams that has a low seed handicapper, middle seeds and high seeds (i.e. balanced handicap teams). However, by doing that we virtually removed the handicap issue entirely, and most teams played off similar handicaps anyway.

I tend to find it gets even worse in Mixed Formats, where some teams have ladies. This can be course dependent, but at some courses there are many holes were the red tees are miles ahead of the whites. It means a lady can hit it a short distance off the tee, but put a man in the team at a significant advantage for the 2nd shot (compared to a team of 4 men hitting off whites, and even great drives struggling to get to where the lady could get to). I wonder how many millions of scores WHS evaluated to see what the impact of having mixed teams would have?

It seems many others are having similar experiences. Yet, despite the fact WHS is new and might not actually be perfect on the day of its release, there are people that seem to want to blindly, religiously defend it as if there could not possibly be any issue. That golfers who actually use it in practice are just lying, or don't know what they are talking about.

My above thoughts are on the 4-ball format. I've not played in 2-ball scramble so have no opinion on it.

 

[IanMcC]

Assuming an average course, 6 under is not a good score for a team of 4 single figure golfers (one of whom is very low), and your finishing position is entirely expected.

There is no perfect allowance formula for scrambles, which is why it's always been recommended that handicaps be balanced across the field, however the WHS recommendation is far more equitable than 10% ever was.

If 10 under par nett deserves to be in 3rd last position then that fact alone says that something is wrong with the allowances, does it not?

 

[chrisd]

When we first started playing Texas Scramble at my place any handicap level could win but a few games under their belt the single figure guys learnt the idiosyncrasies of the game and won almost every time. With the new handicaps it seems that teams with around a 10 handicap come in more often

This is not scientific, just my view at my club. At Littlestone last week we had about 9.8 combined hc and scored around 54, I think 51 was the winning score ( I stand to be corrected)

 

[wjemather]

If 10 under par nett deserves to be in 3rd last position then that fact alone says that something is wrong with the allowances, does it not?

No. Not at all. The only thing that matters is equity; par is irrelevant.
However, if you do want to roughly compare your score against par, I suggest adding about 15 strokes.
Nett 10 under may have been above average scoring with 10% allowances, but it isn't any longer.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

The WHS recommended allowances are pure guess work

And it’s failed - our scrambles are won by high handicaps and any teams with low or mid don’t have a chance

And that’s been seen on every scramble we have had

 

[wjemather]

Basing any conclusion/judgment on the results of one club (out of thousands) is plainly ridiculous. Otherwise, why not just pick a different club...

Our two most recent scrambles saw low, mid and high handicap teams finishing up and down the field, with all handicaps clearly having a chance with winning scores of nett 16 and 18 under par.

1. three teams tied at the top: team handicaps 10, 14 (the joint highest handicap team) and 4 (the lowest handicap team); 2nd lowest handicap team was last, followed by the joint highest.
2. 7 teams within 2 strokes: team handicaps 13, 9, 14, 12, 6 (=2nd lowest), 8, 6 (=2nd lowest); the two highest handicap teams (17) were dead last and next to last

 

[rulefan]

I am told "In developing the WHS, a significant amount of score analysis and statistical modelling identified that different allowances were required, "
I suspect that the relatively small amount of data collected by some individual clubs does not satisfy the definition of 'substantial". Certainly the two scrambles (one Florida the other Texas) we have run have shown no bias. But two swallows etc .....

 

[rulefan]

I have had confirmation to the effect "All the allowances were researched and tested by the USGA/R&A.
EG doesn't have the details of this research as it was never issued to them."
I believe this is true of other national authorities.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I have had confirmation to the effect "All the allowances were researched and tested by the USGA/R&A.
EG doesn't have the details of this research as it was never issued to them."
I believe this is true of other national authorities.

So that’s speak for “computer simulation”

 

[rulefan]

So that’s speak for “computer simulation”

Possibly. Perhaps you have more information. But I have only passed on what I have found. But what's wrong with computer simulation these days anyway? That's why billionaires don't only make millions and why very few planes crash. The absence led to many companies going bust. Simulation can and does answer many 'What if' questions.

 

[Swango1980]

Possibly. Perhaps you have more information. But I have only passed on what I have found. But what's wrong with computer simulation these days anyway? That's why billionaires don't only make millions and why very few planes crash. The absence led to many companies going bust. Simulation can and does answer many 'What if' questions.

I work in computer modelling. It can also give drastically incorrect results, whether that be down to mistakes, bad assumptions or oversight.

 

[rulefan]

I work in computer modelling. It can also give drastically incorrect results, whether that be down to mistakes, bad assumptions or oversight.

But that is down to people not the computer. But this would be a fairly straightforward bit of number crunching.

 

[Jimaroid]

I work in computer modelling. It can also give drastically incorrect results, whether that be down to mistakes, bad assumptions or oversight.

I’ve already made the same points earlier in the thread - there doesn’t appear to be any comparison of the model output to real data. And no amount of enquiry is available.

Smells like bad computer science.

 

[Swango1980]

But that is down to people not the computer. But this would be a fairly straightforward bit of number crunching.

That is true. But, it is people that run the computer. The computer didn't just wake up one morning and tell itself it fancied finding a formula for Texas Scramble handicaps.

 

[jim8flog]

Possibly. Perhaps you have more information. But I have only passed on what I have found. But what's wrong with computer simulation these days anyway? That's why billionaires don't only make millions and why very few planes crash. The absence led to many companies going bust. Simulation can and does answer many 'What if' questions.

There is a very simple statement when it comes to computer programmes

Garbage in garbage out rubbish in rubbish out

and the famous

There are lies , damn lies and then there are statistics.

I would agree that scramble allowances needed looking at but even under the old system I have seen the extremes with groups of handicaps all in the late teens winning by 5 or or so shots and groups of all single figures doing the same.

 

[rulefan]

There is a very simple statement when it comes to computer programmes

Garbage in garbage out rubbish in rubbish out

and the famous

There are lies , damn lies and then there are statistics.

I would agree that scramble allowances needed looking at but even under the old system I have seen the extremes with groups of handicaps all in the late teens winning by 5 or or so shots and groups of all single figures doing the same.

But I am still happier with a study which has a massive data source rather than a few anecdotal examples where 'my team was stuffed'.

 

[Swango1980]

But I am still happier with a study which has a massive data source rather than a few anecdotal examples where 'my team was stuffed'.

I guess some people are only too happy to conveniently ignore experiences in the real world, and hide behind stats. Even though stats can be very misleading.

I'd be interested to know though. Were these Texas Scramble handicap calculations determined by thousands of mathematical / computer / golfing experts, and they all came to the same conclusion? Or was it one guy, or a small team of people, that came up with a methodology. If so, that methodology could be extremely flawed, and not backed up by thousands of other people reviewing it. It really is irrelevant how many scores they used. You could give us all access to all the published scores for the last 20 years to, and I'm sure we'd all come up with something different. Some of us will make huge errors, while others may come up with something that looks logical on paper, yet gives very different results to someone else that comes up with something that seems logical.

Was their much work into the impact on handicaps if each player must take 2, 3 or 4 drives each? Taking 4 drives each often feels tougher, especially with a high handicapper(s) in the team, where you struggle to get everyone's in by 16 holes.

 

[rulefan]

I am told that separate USGA, R&A and Golf Australia teams worked on all handicap allowances. I don't know their methodology.

I wonder why the old 10% rule produced many 'real world' anecdotal complaints. That was certainly never explored. It was just thought to be a reasonable idea at the time.
Of course the numbers are only recommendations, they are not mandated. But I await with interest to see if anyone produces a 'better' answer.
Answers welcome with justification

 

[jim8flog]

But I am still happier with a study which has a massive data source rather than a few anecdotal examples where 'my team was stuffed'.

My point really is that the data is probably made up data to suit the program rather than actual data from recorded scores from clubs.
To get massive data from clubs would astound me. Where I play we have one or two a year and I know we have never been asked to submit the scores to any authority.

 

[Swango1980]

I wonder why the old 10% rule produced many 'real world' anecdotal complaints. That was certainly never explored. It was just thought to be a reasonable idea.
Of course the numbers are only recommendations, they are not mandated. But I await with interest to see if anyone produces a 'better' answer.
Answers welcome with justification

Are you sure it didn't? At my old club, some admitted there would be no point in entering a scramble if there was a team of very low handicappers. It is why our club, about 5 or so years ago, decided to draw balanced teams, rather than allowing members to pick their own team. That worked well then, and after WHS.

I also don't think anyone on here is necessarily saying the 10% idea was perfect. In fact, people have acknowledged it favoured low handicappers. Did it cause as many complaints as now? I do not know. If it didn't, maybe that, although it made things difficult for high handicappers, there was also a subconscious feeling that the better golf was being rewarded and therefore less of an issue in people's heads, generally.

I also seem to remember people on here, near the start of WHS, saying they would do their own thing regarding handicaps in Scramble. I seem to remember strong WHS supporters criticising this, and that the WHS guidelines should be considered mandatory for affiliated clubs. They almost suggested clubs could risk their affiliation for just doing their own thing.